experience of remediation obligations in France, Germany and Italy has very similar aspects. In all countries there is the 'polluter pays' principle, which places the obligation to clean up the person who actually caused the damage, while there is still some difference as to whether other persons who have not contributed causally to the damage can be held liable. The most liberal system is the French, in which, in cases of soil pollution, it is expressly provided that responsibility for remediation from dangerous activities (ICPE) can only be ascribed to the owner if he is guilty of negligence and has therefore contributed to the cause of the damage; even in Italy, even after a lively jurisprudential debate, the Council of State first and the Court of Justice have made it clear that the owner of the land can be held responsible for the reclamation only if he is charged with some behavior that has contributed causally to the damage. The solution of the German system is opposed: as a subsidiary to the polluter, the owner of the land prior to the current one is also called upon to answer as an objective liability. The analysis confirms a further connection profile, i.e. the economic one, in relation to the need to reconcile economic growth with the fair distribution of resources. The connection also concerns the inclusion of environmental costs in the management and development of enterprises, which require an ability to sustain the production of capital understood not only economically but also humanly and naturally.
L'esperienza sugli obblighi di bonifica in Francia, Germania e Italia presenta aspetti alquanto similari. In tutti i paesi vige il principio del “chi inquina paga”, che pone l’obbligo di bonifica in capo al soggetto che effettivamente ha procurato il danno mentre permane qualche differenza sulla possibilità che altri soggetti che non hanno contribuito causalmente al danno possano essere dichiarati responsabili. L’ordinamento più liberale è quello francese, nel quale, nei casi di inquinamento del suolo, è espressamente previsto che la responsabilità per la bonifica da attività pericolose (ICPE) possa essere ascritta al proprietario soltanto ove questo sia colpevole di negligenza e quindi abbia contribuito alla causazione del danno; anche in Italia, sia pure dopo un vivo dibattito giurisprudenziale, il Consiglio di Stato prima e la Corte di Giustizia hanno chiarito che il proprietario del suolo può essere dichiarato responsabile per la bonifica soltanto ove gli sia addebitabile un qualche comportamento che abbia contribuito causalmente al danno. Opposta la soluzione del sistema tedesco: in via sussidiaria rispetto al soggetto inquinatore, è chiamato a rispondere a titolo di responsabilità oggettiva anche il proprietario del terreno precedente a quello attuale. L'analisi conferma un ulteriore profilo di connessione, cioè quello economico, in relazione all’esigenza di conciliare la crescita economica e l’equa distribuzione delle risorse. La connessione riguarda altresì l’inserimento dei costi ambientali nella gestione e nello sviluppo delle imprese, alle quali si richiede una capacità di sostenere la produzione di un capitale inteso in senso non solo economico ma anche umano e naturale.
LA RESPONSABILITÀ PER LA BONIFICA AMBIENTALE: PROFILI COMPARATISTICI EUROPEI
Andrea Russo
2018
Abstract
experience of remediation obligations in France, Germany and Italy has very similar aspects. In all countries there is the 'polluter pays' principle, which places the obligation to clean up the person who actually caused the damage, while there is still some difference as to whether other persons who have not contributed causally to the damage can be held liable. The most liberal system is the French, in which, in cases of soil pollution, it is expressly provided that responsibility for remediation from dangerous activities (ICPE) can only be ascribed to the owner if he is guilty of negligence and has therefore contributed to the cause of the damage; even in Italy, even after a lively jurisprudential debate, the Council of State first and the Court of Justice have made it clear that the owner of the land can be held responsible for the reclamation only if he is charged with some behavior that has contributed causally to the damage. The solution of the German system is opposed: as a subsidiary to the polluter, the owner of the land prior to the current one is also called upon to answer as an objective liability. The analysis confirms a further connection profile, i.e. the economic one, in relation to the need to reconcile economic growth with the fair distribution of resources. The connection also concerns the inclusion of environmental costs in the management and development of enterprises, which require an ability to sustain the production of capital understood not only economically but also humanly and naturally.I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
